|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Straggler, don't want to take you off-topic, but this caused my brain to almost explode.
So in your example the person travelling to 2010 and reading the newspaper would see a future. Presumably a future that was not the product of someone in 2009 having knowledge of 2010. So when our traveller returns to 2009 with this knowledge of 2010 the universe branches off from the course he saw and there are no guarantees at all that the future events he witnessed will ever take place in this new timeline. Wouldn't the person arriving in 2010, meet his future self who, since he goes back to 2009, should have the information that was aquired in 2010...? Wouldn't that confirm if the events happened the same? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Linda Lou,
Sorry to interrupt yours and Stragglers discussion, but I wanted to comment on this:
LL writes: What I do know is that there is currently no scientific explanation for the "Dogs that Know" results. I fail to see where science has declared that there is an actual phenomenon concerning dogs? It seems like the phenomenon is founded on assertions by some dog owners who feel there is something going on. Are these assertions really something science needs to delve into? Have I missed something? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Try reading Message 80. Thanks, Linda. I did read that message, including the link that you provided. That's how my question came up. Your link states:
quote: What I gathered from that, and the paper, is that dog owners believe their pets demonstate this ability. IOW, dog owners believe there is a phenomenon that should be looked into. But I asked if science has made any declarations about this phenomenon, or is this just something dog owners feel is happening? The reason I ask is because you said:
quote: Well, how can there be a scientific explanation to something science isn't asking a question for? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Do you have any problems with how his "Dogs that Know" experiments were designed, conducted or analysed? No, not at all. They seem honestly conducted. My only issue is with your comment that science, as of yet, didn't have an answer for it. My question is: Is there an actual phenomenon that science should be looking into? You said science had no answer. I submit that science doesn't know there's a question. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I gave you a personal opinion on the expirement. My opinion is irrelevant to science.
Do you think science has a question they should be answering? You said science, in it's entirety, had no answer - I again state that science has not claimed there's a question to answer. What I see is an experiement conducted due to assertions from dog owners. Are there people in science claiming the same as the dog owners, that there is a phenomenon to look into? If there aren't any scientist claiming that there might be a phenomenon, then how could science even have an answer for it? Your claim that science, as of yet, doesn't have an answer, seems to be an unnecessary claim. Again, science has not claimed there's a question to have an answer for, unless you can cite something from scientist that claims there's a phenomenon...? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hmmm, so you seem to be saying that because scientists apparently do not recognise the existence of telepathy or precognition, that there's nothing to investigate? This may be a side note to what I'm saying, but my point is that you have no reason to claim: "What I do know is that there is currently no scientific explanation for the "Dogs that Know" results." What I'm saying is that there is currently no investigation into the assertion that dogs have telepathy, therefore it is unnecessary to say that there exists no scientific evidence to explain those results.
Maybe many of them aren't aware of the "Dogs that Know" experiments. Probably a number of them have dismissed them without really looking into them -- a phenomenon I expect we'll see more of on this thread as the discussion progresses. Maybe many of them are aware of it. Probably a number of them dismissed it having looked into it.
It seems to me that experiments such as Sheldrake's should be publicised and treated with the seriousness that they deserve. Well, I would say that that's up to the person(s) doing the experiment to establish the seriousness of what they're doing via the scientific method. To include peer-review, etc.
Let's see more scientists opening their minds to the possibility of telepathy and attempting to replicate Sheldrake's experiments, or take them further. Why? Because you (or a handful of people) feel they should? That's not how one establishes credibility for assertions, Linda.
What else do you think we should do -- conveniently ignore genuinely positive experimental results? We aren't doing anything. I looked at it, as you asked. What more could we do? One person conducted an experiment based on the belief that dogs are telepathic...now what? Have you looked into Dolphins ability to cure humans via sonar? I started a thread on it Dolphin assisted therapy, and I provided some research on it. Not enough to conclude that they do, but enough to at least say that science has looked into it. Now, what I feel is going on is different to what the evidence points to, is it not?
I'm pretty amazed at your claim that this should be done simply because an unspecified group of scientists hasn't given the subject its seal of approval for study. And I'm even more amazed (by my standards of judging amazement) that you feel it should done just because some dog owners believe their dogs are telepathic. It's up to the one doing the experimenting to provide substantial evidence to turn heads onto any phenomenon they claim exists.
This ambiguous group of people have a monopoly on what we should investigate, do they? Investigate away. Just don't be upset if no one pays any attention to it. It's up to the one doing the experimenting to provide substantial evidence to turn heads onto any phenomenon they claim exists. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Well it would be easy to rephrase if you wish and say something like, "This experimental result has emerged (because there is investigation into the assertion, by Sheldrake, with positive outcome) and science now needs to provide an explanation for it." Do they? Well, I'll inform them, but I don't think I'll do much with my request. As long as you concede that "science has no explanation for this phenomenon" was an unnecessary comment to make, my original question to you has been answered.
I would hazard a guess that many scientists are not aware of it, because most of them take no notice of studies of the paranormal, no matter how rigorously scientific. The current paradigm is to dismiss such things out of hand as nonsense, and to attempt to give them scientific validity is career suicide. Look at how many people on this forum alone really, really don't want to entertain the notion that something like telepathy might be real. Linda, while I think some of this stuff can be interesting, I also feel you approach this similar to how Christians approach miracles. You want it to be real and a single experiment that sort of gives YOU some convincing results helps settle the questions of "can it be real." But if it had any merit, science would be looking into it, just like they look into everything else in our world. I mean, they built the LHC to look for sub-atomic, almost non-existent, particles. Telepathy in dogs would be nothing to investigate. Telepathy has been researched, and sadly there's not much there. You take that how you like, as for me, I'm cool knowing it's science fiction.
So that's OK in your book even if such studies continue, are replicated, and get positive results? Still not worthy of attention? Perhaps Sheldrake will need to tap dance on the wall singing "What a Wonderful World" first? Or give it all up and devote his life to studying fruit flies, because then he's not stirring up anyone's prejudices? Or, maybe you need to see it for what it really is and allow for the possibility that there is really no phenomenon, just humans looking for patterns. That's just my opinion though. My main issue was settled. Thanks, - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I think Linda has a point in that sometimes it seems scientists do tend to dismiss out of hand the paranormal simply because it is classified as the paranormal. What would you suggest classifying it as? I think the problem starts when someone assumes they have been witness to an unnatural, or paranormal, or miraculous, event. In this particular case, she (Linda) is suggesting people assumed the dogs had telepathy, and an experiment showed what seems to be anomalous patterns. Is that enough to conclude this should be classified as a paranormal phenomenon? In my opinion (and this is only my opinion) it is not. However, for those who feel it does, well, the skies the limit as far as the research you can do. Enjoy, have fun, and let the rest of the natural world know when you found something substantial.
I feel scientists are more willing to believe in multiple universes and multiple dimensions than in the paranormal even though multiple universes and dimensions have no evidence supporting them either (as far as I know). If one of the experts wishes to weigh in on this issue then they'll trump whatever I'm about to say. But as far as I've read, multiverse systems, multi-dimensional theories, string/M-theory, has plenty of math to support it. In fact, string theory predicts gravity which, if it can make predictions that can be verified, seems to be much more substantial than "I think this dog knows when I get home." - Oni If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~George Carlin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
No one is assuming anything. Yes, they have assumed they've been witness to a paranormal phenomenon explainable only by telepathy. If you conclude that it's possible (telepathy) then you've accepted telepathy as something valid. However, no one has any idea what telepathy is, how it works, what forces it works on, fields it may use to function, so how the F does anyone know that some animal or human could be telepathic? Wouldn't you need to first establish what telepathy is, and how it works, before you can run a test on a dog for telepathy?
Mathematical models do not make a hypothesis true. Making a hypothesis true? I don't get it. Mathematical models support the hypothesis, especially in cosmology and questions of origin where mathematical model are not only needed but required.
That's why dark energy and dark matter are hypothetical, because as of yet, no one has been able to verify their existence. Sorry, but that's incorrect. Dark matter/energy represent the "force" behind the current accelerated expansion of the universe, which is observed. There's nothing hypothetical about it. What you may be thinking about is "what they're made of" not being known; they're a hypothetical particle WIMPS and MACHOS. Read the links, are you comparing this to telepathy for real?
That's why String Theory* is considered by many physicists as pseudoscience, because it is unfalsifiable at this time due to the high energy requirements to even begin to test for strings. That's a load of crap, sorry.
Sure the math supports the theories, but in science, math only makes models; observations and experimental data are needed to support or disprove the models. And they have. Not that I'm an expert or anything close, but for Dark Energy/Matter there is observed effects (accelerated expansion), for String Theory/M theory, it predicts gravity within it's equations, so it's made real world predictions. What does telepathy have to support it, a dog that goes to the window?
Since no one can make observations or do experiments to verify any of those concepts Once again, this is a load of crap, sorry.
Note: As far as I know, there are many mathematical models of String Theory so one of the criticisms of String Theory is that there are so many models, it's difficult to know which one is correct and which one to test for. Note: Relativity is just a mathematical theory, what makes it true is that it makes predictions that can be tested, observed, etc. String predicted gravity in it's equations; gravity is a pretty well observed thing. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Linda Lou,
Same question to you as above then: if Sheldrake did more experiments, with more permutations, or if others did them, how much would it take to satisfy you? The same as I require for all theories that try to explain a phenomenon. My suggestion: first, define telepathy by means of a force, a particle, a wave, something. Show that something is actually happening, before you make a hypothesis which includes it as the answer. It's similar to the god answer: How did existence come about? God did it. What is god? I don't know. Then how do you know he could do it?
Looks to me like you are setting the bar very high. If that's the bar being set too high, then fine, it's high. There's enough garbage passing for actual science these days, maybe we need a higher standard.
If Sheldrake did decide his time was better spent studying fruit flies, I feel certain that no one would be making such demands before they accepted the validity of his work. At least for me, I don't accept someones work based on their name, I accept it on the quality of the work itself. If Steven Hawking, tomorrow, claimed he thinks a dog may be telepathic, and he gave the work that Sheldrake gave, I wouldn't believe he is right anymore than I don't think Sheldrake is right.
To repeat another point I made recently, Pavlov's dog studies are taught in high schools across the world. He is heralded as the father of behavioural psychology. All he did was ring bells at certain times and put food out for the dogs, or not. Can you tell me how this is so very different from what Sheldrake did, and why Pavlov's name should be in so many science books while Shelrdake's experiments should be ignored? Sure, how does telepathy work, how does it function, what is it? Is it a particle, a wave, an energy field... what exactly is it that the dog is doing? I think the rest of your questions fall under the above as well. No one even knows what telepathy is/works/functions/etc. They just claim "it's the transfer of information on thoughts or feelings between individuals." But there is no mechanism by which telepathy can work, so what people are claiming is being transfered has no means by which to transfer. Telepathy needs to be explain BEFORE any experiment (such as Shelrdrake's) can be considered. He explained what the dog did, when it did it, the times it did it, and that's fine. I have no problem with how he did that. That's why I said he seems to have done honest work. But when he claims "this may be telepathy," I have to stop it there and ask, "what's telepathy?" Sure, it's commonly used and thrown around in anecdotes, in sci-fi, in books and movies, etc. So it's a word that we know. But, what it actually is and how it works, and what mechanism it uses to do it all with, is anyone's guess. Further, due to this lack of description, how could anyone claim they've just witness a phenomenon that may have happened due to telepathy? I think it's bogus. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
You are not accepting telepathy as a valid explanation of the described phenomenon, just one explanation of many. That's the reason why scientists form hypotheses; they think up an explanation and experiment to see how their explanation holds to real world data. One of many? Sure, like fairies are carring the information between the individual minds? There's another one. Izanagi, what's "telepathy"? What mechanism does it use?
But that's what Sheldrake was trying to do - provide a scientific explanation for telepathy. No he's not, and that's the problem. He's conducting an experiement for why the dog goes to the window when the owner is about to get home. He CHOSE telepathy as one of the answers. But the problem is, what's telepathy and how does it work? Once you answer that, THEN let's see if a dog has all those necessary tools to do it. Lets find out what it is first and how it operates BEFORE we claim it's the reason for why a dog goes to the window at curious times.
And if mathematical models were all that was required, then all versions of String Theory would have been accepted. And again, you are wrong. You're about 15 years behind in your knowledge of String Theory. It's now known as ONE theory called M-Theory.
source quote: And there are other unified theories as well.
They are hypothetical. If they aren't, name the experiments that have shown dark matter and dark energy exist. The observed accelerated expansion of the universe. I just want to inform you that there are a shit load of threads which you can get involved in to discuss this with experts such as cavediver and SonGoku. We are getting way off-topic.
At least gravity has an explanation for its occurrence - warped spacetime. What are the natures of dark matter/energy? What are the explanations for the "forces" of dark matter/energy beyond particles? If the particles aren't detected, what does that mean for dark matter/energy? What about the alternative explanations for dark energy? Notice, those are the same types of questions you ask of Sheldrake and his definition of telepathy. While physicists may speculate since no direct observation has been made, that's all there is: speculation. You are talking out of your ass, dude. I suggest you go find a thread on Dark matter/energy and read it, propose your questions there, and have it explained properly to you. The Discovery Channel can really misrepresent this stuff.
Peter Woite with a blurb about his book, Lee Smolin and the website for his book, Philip Warren Anderson and an article he wrote in the NYT on String Theory, Sheldon Glashow and his views on String Theory from an interview with NOVA, Lawrence Krauss and a blurb about his book, "Hiding in the Mirror", and Carlo Rovelli and his stuff was a bit harder to find but here's something. The gist of their arguments, from what I gather, is that String Theory is not good science. Is that enough for you? Is it crap now? Bare links are worthless. Please provide the quotes with the links of each of them calling it pseudoscience.
Oni writes: Relativity is just a mathematical theory, what makes it true is that it makes predictions that can be tested, observed, etc. String predicted gravity in it's equations; gravity is a pretty well observed thing.
Izanagi writes: Except for the competing theory of loop quantum gravity which doesn't need extra dimensions. I don't know what your reply is supposed to mean. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
And I'm telling you that loop quantum gravity also explains gravity without the extra dimensions. It seems to me that LQG is a better theory than string theory as it parsimonious. It seems to you? Does it? Well fuck, ok then, lets shut down the theoretical physics departments around the world. You missed the point. I don't care if QLT (which I actually like too) predicts gravity. The point here is that String MAKES A PREDICTION, telepathy does not. Why on earth did you introduce QLT into this?
From Peter Woit's blog about multiple universes (MWI):
quote: and about String Theory found here:
quote: Lee Smolin on multiple universe:
quote: and from his book, "The Trouble with Physics: the Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next"
quote: Phillip Warren Anderson in his article to the NYT:
quote: Sheldon Glashow and a quote from his interview with NOVA:
quote: And another:
quote: Lawrence Krauss about his debate against Brian Greene:
quote: And Carlo Rovelli about string theory:
quote: Yes, and as I suspected, NOT ONE OF THEM calls it pseudoscience as you claimed. Thanks for proving me right.
Astrophysicists saw the Universe was expanding faster than models predicted and hypothesized dark energy to explain it. This is analogous to Straggler's contention that Sheldrake saw a phenomenon and hypothesized telepathy to explain it. Energy and matter are both well understood, and are both capable of forcing the universe to expand. Are you being thrown off by the mysterious use of the word "dark"? It's matter and energy. Now, what's telepathy?
And apparently it's still incomplete, sort of like the description for telepathy. Oh, OK. Then tell me at least what the field that telepathy uses is? Or, just tell me ANYTHING about how it works.
Yet you accept M-Theory despite the fact that it is incomplete. I am not qualified to accept or reject those theories. The math is way to advanced for me. Personally, I thought QLT was easier to understand.
So why can you accept an incomplete M-Theory and not an incomplete concept of telepathy? There is NO concept for telepathy equal to that of M-theory, incomplete or otherwise.
What's dark matter? What's dark energy? Matter and energy...do you not recognize those 2 things in the name? It's not describing something supernatural.
What mechanisms do they use? - Do you even know what you're asking for at this point? What "mechanism" do neutrinos use? Here, I'll give you the definition of neutrinos and see if you could tell me what mechanism they use:
They are elementary particles that often travel close to the speed of light, lack an electric charge, are able to pass through ordinary matter almost undisturbed and are thus extremely difficult to detect. Neutrinos have a minuscule, but nonzero mass. Any clue yet? I hope you're going with the conclusion that asking what mechanism neutrinos use is a nonsensical question. Likewise, asking what mechanism dark matter/energy use is also a nonsensical question. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I explained what I think telepathy is. To me, it could be specific brainwave patterns. Brainwave patterns that do what, travel to someone elses brain?
We can test for brainwaves. They do. Brainwaves are contained in your head. Is telepathy "travelling brainwaves"...? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
But the fact that you are now mocking my, what I am assuming is, a naturalistic explanation tells me you won't consider the argument. Woooh, I was not mocking at all. But if you think me question sounded like mocking, then they should tell you something about what we're discussing.
The explanation is rooted in the natural world and therefore falsifiable. Do the experiments and prove me wrong and it wouldn't matter one lick to me. You haven't told me what to look for yet. Are they brainwaves that travel in some sort of field, or, are they brainwaves that stay in the brain? These questions are important, and will also show that when people use the word 'telepathy" they have no clue what the word means or what they are describing. Which again makes me ask, are they witnessed a paranormal phenomenon at all. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I don't know much about brainwaves, but I don't think it really matters if they stop at the skull or are in some sort of field because brainwaves typically originate in the brain. The problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming that brain waves can travel in a "field," when in fact they cannot. Brain waves are simply the firing of neurons, which travel down axons and release chemicals at the synapse. So in no way can these brain waves be doing anything but working in your brain. Here's a good read on telepathy - source - complete with studies on it and the results. Here's an excerpt from it, since Linda Lou feels no one looks into this stuff.
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024